[Kosh]

In the US, regardless of who wins the election, jack-booted stormtroopers aren't going to bust down your door at 3am and haul you off,

They do if you are Arab.

But seriously the CIA does kidnap people, ship them off to places like Egypt to be tortured, and then return them.

[General Freak]

*cough*proofplease*cough*

[Kosh]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4619377.stm

I take it that you have never heard about that big contraversy in Italy over that.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kosh



They do if you are Arab.

But seriously the CIA does kidnap people, ship them off to places like Egypt to be tortured, and then return them.

Yeah, but that's a handful out of 300 million. And don't give me the "if you're an Arab" line. Statistically, the number of Arab people who ran into real trouble with the government is utterly tiny, to the point of being almost negligible, compared to the whole Arab population living in the US. It's not like they're rounding up people left and right.

Not that I'm saying the government isn't prone to have their way, laws be damned, I'm just saying it's not widespread.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by General Freak
*cough*proofplease*cough*

*cough*they****ingadmittedittothepress*cough*extraordinaryrendition*cough*

[Kazan]

Rictor: just because the % incidence is low doesn't mean it's acceptable

[Kosh]

Yeah, but that's a handful out of 300 million.

So I guess it's perfectly ok to racially profile and persecute a "small minority" according to that statement.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Kosh


So I guess it's perfectly ok to racially profile and persecute a "small minority" according to that statement.

rictor=pwnd

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: just because the % incidence is low doesn't mean it's acceptable

I don't think that Rictor is saying that it is. Just that your average american won't get off of his fat arse and do something about it just because of such a low percentage of incidents.

[Kazan]

rictor needs to learn not to make ambigious statements then - he does it all the time and it makes him often look like a racist or a moron.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kosh


So I guess it's perfectly ok to racially profile and persecute a "small minority" according to that statement.

It's not acceptable, but it's not Stalin reborn. And yes, racial minorities (or rather, minorities in general) have always been persecuted, and continue to be so in most of the world. That's because people like their own better than those damn no good so-and-so's, and will generally want to discourage the so-and-so's from getting too comfortable.

What I am arguing is that the number of people affected is not irrelevant to the equation. If one person is being persecuted, it's different than if 1000 people are, is different than if 100,000 people are.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by General Freak
*cough*proofplease*cough*

There is pretty strong evidence to support what the CIA terms 'extraordinary rendition' involves moving suspects to ally countries where torture is practiced.

Well, the (former) British ambassador to Uzbekistan lodged a public complaint over MI5 using information obtained by torturing prisoners (via the CIA).  I believe Uzbekistan is an location where suspects are sent for interrogation, along with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and US bases in Afghanistan and Iraq (not sure about the latter, they might not have room....).  The US formerly sent suspects to Syria, but stopped due to the somewhat unfriendly relationship with said state (and likely ****storm if some journalist properly picked up on that).

The Irish government also refused refuelling access to CIA aircraft after public protests over torture.  This has also been question in the UK; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4414491.stm

Further accusations are that same Gulfstream and 737 jets are used to 'extradite' suspects who are bound, gagged and forcibly sedated, having been taken by force; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1357699,00.html

An Italian court has issued a warrant for the arrest of CIA agents over the kidnap of an Islamic cleric, who was subsequently flown to Egypt for interrogation (nee torture); http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4637509.stm

A man named Khalid Al-Masri has accused the CIA of abducting him from holiday in Macedonia before flying him to Afghanistan; this is supported by known flightplans - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999272/site/newsweek/

An Israeli newspaper (Haaretz) has claimed senior al-Queda figures are being held in Jordan, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3739858.stm

The FBI advised their agents to stay out of interrogations in several non-US locations as they were 'too brutal' to be legally used in court; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3709793.stm

There have also been accusations of torture on non-mainland Us territory such as Diego Garcia; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2607629.stm

[Rictor]

Actually, I've heard that some of the worst interrogation centers aren't even on land, but on US warships.

[Kosh]

It's not acceptable,

Then why are you downplaying it by turning it into a numbers game? They ARE people too.

What I am arguing is that the number of people affected is not irrelevant to the equation

Care to reword that? I'm having a hard time making sense of it.

[TrashMan]

Well, where would you look for terrorists if all the previos terrorist were of arab origin? Among the arab population of course. That makes sense. And if it makes sense then it isn't rasistic.  

Torture is a terrible thing, but sadly, sometimes it might be the only way to actually extract information out of someone. I don't feel sad at all if some would-be terrorists get's caught and tortured, but when an inocent get's caught - oh boy.
It makes me sick, but in war, no side really follows any rules. That's exactly the ture meaning and the most horrific thing about real war - no conventions or treaties are gonna save your ass if the other side thinks you know something.

[aldo_14]

I think Rictor is simply pointing out that the vast majority of Americans - arab or otherwise - will never have their door kicked down by the CIA or FBI, and thus it's less likely that they will be mobilized by that happening to the minority.  Until the majority are anticipating some from of oppression or abuse in that manner, it's highly unlikely they'll care about those few people it does happen to.

[Kosh]

Well, where would you look for terrorists if all the previos terrorist were of arab origin?

Timothy McVeigh was not arab, or even a muslim. Yet he was a terrorist and he blew up the Oklahoma City federal building.

Torture is a terrible thing, but sadly, sometimes it might be the only way to actually extract information out of someone.

People who are being tortured often times just tell the torturers what they want to hear to make them stop. So if a "suspected" terrorist was tortured, he would "confess" to being a terrorist even if he/she wasn't actually a terrorist.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Well, where would you look for terrorists if all the previos terrorist were of arab origin? Among the arab population of course. That makes sense. And if it makes sense then it isn't rasistic.

Problem is that they weren't; take Richard Reid or John Walker Lindh for example. There's also a case of a would-be-terrorist convincing his white, pregnant, Irish girlfriend to carry a bomb onto a plane.  Anyone can be radicalised; just look at the militiamen in the US.

 There's also an issue of basic human rights here; it's not right to take away those rights because of another persons crime - how can it be fair to make person X pay for the act of person Y, when both - despite having the same ethnicity and religion - probably grew up hundreds of miles away, went to different schools, never even came close to meetings, and lived completely different lives.  Placing a section of the population under that constraint is simply creating the conditions for extremism - oppression and unfair treatment leading to paranoia and eventually hate from that population group.

EDIT; it's (racial profiling/targeting) need not be racist in principle, but is self-defeating.  Focusing on a set demographic simply means any active terrorist will switch tactics to take advantage of the demographics you're not looking in.

Originally posted by TrashMan
Torture is a terrible thing, but sadly, sometimes it might be the only way to actually extract information out of someone. I don't feel sad at all if some would-be terrorists get's caught and tortured, but when an inocent get's caught - oh boy.
It makes me sick, but in war, no side really follows any rules. That's exactly the ture meaning and the most horrific thing about real war - no conventions or treaties are gonna save your ass if the other side thinks you know something.

Torture is inherently unreliable; it's well known that it's more likely to produce false information than actual intelligence - how many people burnt as witches after confessing do you think were actually witches?

The only point where you can justify torture is where you know the suspect is a terrorist, and when you know for sure that they know of an attack.  If you have the definitive proof of those 2, it's likely you already have the information you need, so torture is then simply unecessary (and even is still unreliable).

[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Well, where would you look for terrorists if all the previos terrorist were of arab origin? Among the arab population of course. That makes sense. And if it makes sense then it isn't rasistic.  

Not all the terrorists were arabs. In fact half of those involved in the London bombings were black. You want to start profiling all black people as terrorists and claim that isn't racist?

Not to mention that the strongest kind of fundementalist is the convert. And they can be any colour.

To assume that terrorists are all arabs is idiotic AND racist.

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by Rictor
Actually, I've heard that some of the worst interrogation centers aren't even on land, but on US warships.

Where and what moron said that? Okay, the army has some issues, they get more contact with the results of what these folks do. But a USN captain allowing that to take place on his ship? People have been thrown in prison for allowing ****ing hazing to take place aboard their ship, and that's when it didn't cause injury. The USN as a whole has taken a very dim view of land-based forces' interrogation tactics. Go read an issue of Proceedings.